R v Tirnaveanu (Cornel)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Thomas |
| Judgment Date | 24 May 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWCA Crim 1239 |
| Docket Number | Case No: 2006/00338D3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Date | 24 May 2007 |
[2007] EWCA Crim 1239
Lord Justice Thomas
Mr Justice Penry-Davey and
Mr Justice Wyn Williams
Case No: 2006/00338D3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM CANTERBURY CROWN COURT
HIS HONOUR JUDGE VAN DER BIJL
T20050041
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Nick Wrack and Dean George for the Appellant
Anthony Prosser and A Walker for the Respondent
Hearing date: 8 March 2007
After a two month trial, the appellant and his wife were convicted at the Crown Court at Canterbury before HH Van Der Bijl and a jury of various offences (including obtaining property by deception, forgery and facilitating illegal entry) relating to the illegal entry into the United Kingdom of Romanian immigrants. Sentences of varying duration, some of them consecutive, amounting in total to seven years were passed on the appellant.
His application for leave to appeal against conviction, as originally formulated, contained a very significant number of grounds. That application was referred to the Full Court on the understanding that, if leave to appeal was granted, a full hearing would follow; we granted leave to appeal. The grounds of appeal were significantly revised and can be grouped under three headings
i) The admissibility of misconduct on other occasions and the directions given in the summing up in the light of the bad character provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 ( CJA 2003).
ii) The need for a direction on unanimity on the forgery counts.
iii) The validity of count 12�the charge of facilitating illegal entry.
The most important of these, both to the appellant and generally, was the first.
As can be appreciated from the length of the trial, the circumstances in which the offences were committed and the evidence adduced by the prosecution were complex.
The factual background and evidence
However for the purposes of the appeal we consider the background circumstances can be summarised briefly.
i) The appellant was a Romanian national. He came to the United Kingdom in August 1993; after marriage to a British national, he was granted indefinite leave to remain in this country. That marriage was dissolved. On 13 June 2002 he married his co-defendant; prior to the marriage, using the name of Denise Dupont, she had lived with him in the United Kingdom at 9a Chancelot Road, Abbey Wood, London from November 2000 until June 2003. From June 2003 the appellant and his co-defendant lived at 85 Chandlers Drive, Erith and then at 33 Wallhouse Road, Erith.
ii) In September 2002 the appellant obtained from a bureau in London, by payment of �440, what purported to be a degree of Bachelor of Laws with Honours in Criminal Law granted by Trinity College, Delaware, USA. He was granted British citizenship in May 2003.
iii) It was the prosecution case that he had become involved by December 2002 in illegal immigration and was posing as a solicitor. On his arrest there was found in his possession business cards with the inscription of the appellant's name, and �LLb(Hons), solicitor, of Tiko Solicitors, 24 Hr. Criminal Emergency Services� with an address in Dartford. There were no such solicitors.
He was not charged with conspiracy, but with a number of specific counts in the indictment. The essence of the main allegations can again be summarised briefly.
i) In count 1 of the indictment, he was charged, with his second wife, of making, or procuring the making, of a false French identification card in the name of Denise Dupont. The evidence relied on for this was the discovery by the police when searching the premises at 85 Chandlers Drive of a document purporting to be a French identify card in the name of Denise Dupont; when it was forensically examined, it was found to be counterfeit. The prosecution case was that Denise Dupont was the appellant's wife and that the appellant made or procured the making of the false identity card. There was no issue that it was counterfeit; the issue was whether there was a Denise Dupont or whether the person for whom the card was to be used was the appellant's wife and who procured or made the false identity card.
ii) In counts 8�12 of the indictment the appellant was charged with a number of offences in relation to Monica Halarescu;
a) Obtaining two sums of �3,500 from her by deception.
b) Making or procuring the making of a false British passport in the name of Monica Halarescu;
c) Making or procuring the making of a forged certificate of British naturalisation in the name of Monica Halarescu (Counts 10 and 11);
d) Facilitating the illegal entry of Monica Halarescu (Count 12).
It was the prosecution case that he had falsely represented to her that he was a qualified solicitor, worked for the Home Office, was authorised to facilitate her application for a certificate of British nationality and a British passport, could supply such documents and was acting in good faith. The prosecution called Monica Halarescu and Nicolae Bilbie as their principal witnesses. Monica Halarescu's evidence was she had met through Nicolae Bilbie a man who had said he was �Cornel Tirnaveanu� and that he was a lawyer working at the Home Office. It was the prosecution case that this individual was the appellant. Various representations were made to her as a result of which she handed over a total of �7,000 to that man and received from that man a UK passport and UK certificate of naturalisation. She went to Romania using the documents. On arrival the fact that the documents were forged was discovered; the fact that they were forged was not in issue. Bilbie's evidence was he had given Monica Halarescu photographs of himself and personal details. When the police searched the appellant's address, photographs of Bilbie were found at his house. Bilbie never met the lawyer who was to obtain a British passport for him.
iii) In counts 13 to 18 of the indictment, the appellant was charged with obtaining �5,000 from Stefan Iamandi, Irina Iamandi and Ion Iordache by making representations similar to those made to Maria Halarescu and attempting to obtain a further �5,000 from each of them. All three were Romanians who had entered the UK illegally in 1998. Their evidence was that they had been told of a lawyer with connections with the Home Office who could help obtain a British passport and certificate of naturalisation. In June or July 2003 they were introduced to a person they understood to be Cornel Tirnaveanu. The prosecution contended that this man was the appellant. The three had expected to meet an English lawyer but were surprised that he was a Romanian. He made various representations to them about his ability to obtain a passport and each handed to him �5,000 together with their passport photographs and details. They then learnt that a friend who had introduced them to Cornel Tirnaveanu and who had obtained a passport from him had been arrested for being in possession of a forged passport. When they were telephoned by Cornel Tirnaveanu with news that the passport was ready, they met him at a coffee shop but did not bring any money to the meeting. They were shown documents but on discovering that they had not brought the money Cornel Tirnaveanu refused to hand over the documents. When the police searched 85 Chandlers Drive they found details of these three together with photographs of Iordache. The police thereafter contacted them.
iv) There were four further counts of facilitating illegal entry (counts 19, 20 and 21) and of forgery of a photocard driving licence (count 22). It is not necessary at this stage to refer to the details of those further matters.
In his interviews with the police and in his defence case statement, the appellant denied each and every allegation. He put the prosecution to proof. He also claimed he was not involved. An elaborate conspiracy had been set up to �frame him� as the person who was acting as the lawyer. If he had been involved, then there was no dishonesty as those who paid him for documents, must have realised that it was all a �scam�. In the event, neither the appellant nor his wife gave evidence at trial.
In addition to the evidence to which we have referred, a substantial number of other witnesses were called. It is in relation to that evidence that the first group of grounds of appeal arose.
(1) Admission of evidence of misconduct on other occasions and the directions to the jury
(a) The nature of the evidence
In order to meet the appellant's case that it was not him, but some other person, who was involved in the provision of forged passports or false documents or in the illegal assistance of immigrants, the prosecution primarily relied upon the evidence of those witnesses directly relating to the counts which we have set out above. However during a search of the appellant's properties, the police discovered a significant amount of paperwork relating to other Romanians whom the prosecution contended were illegal immigrants. We have already referred to the paperwork in connection with Bilbie at paragraph 5 (ii) above and that in relation to Iamandi and Iordache at paragraph 5 (iii) above. No objection was taken to the admissibility of that evidence.
However, the prosecution wished to go further and to adduce:
i) Evidence in relation to other documents found at the appellant's houses which contained details referable to illegal immigrants. The prosecution wanted to call, in connection with those documents, evidence from the immigrants and evidence from immigration officers in relation to such immigrants.
ii) Evidence of others to show that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jamie Ngahuia Ahsin v R and Raeleen Matewai Noyle Rameka v R
...by Part 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. 10 Bouavong v R [2013] NZCA 484, [2014] 2 NZLR 23. 11 R v Giannetto [1997] 1 Cr App R 1 (CA); R v Tirnaveanu [2007] EWCA Crim 1239, [2007] 1 WLR 3029; and R v Thatcher [1987] 1 SCR 12 As they are not where material distinctive circumstances apply.......
-
Blaize Lunkulu, Christian Barabutu, Ndombasi Makusu, Yusef Arslan v R
...associated with its alleged facts (see for instance the reference to R v Machado noted towards the end of Archbold 13–6). 96 In R. v. Tirnaveanu [2007] EWCA Crim 1239; [2007] 2 Cr. App. R. 23 Thomas LJ gave the following analysis of this section: (iii) Was the evidence "to do with the al......
-
Myers v The Queen Cox v Same Brangman v Same
...evidence does not mean that no single piece of evidence is admissible unless it is capable by itself of discharging that burden. Nor does R v Tirnaveanu [2007] EWCA Crim 1239, [2007] 1 WLR 3049, to which Auld JA referred, say anything different. It was certainly a case in which the issue ......
-
James Francis Byrne v R
...in s. 101(1)(c), or an “ important matter in issue” in s. 101(1)(d) which (read together with s. 103) covers propensity issues. 132 In R v Tirnaveanu [2007] EWCA Crim 1239; [2007] 2 Cr App R 23 the Court held at [23] that for evidence of misconduct to fall within section 98(a), it must ge......
-
Authenticating ‘Things’ in English Law: Principles for Adducing Tangible Evidence in Common Law Jury Trials
...Crim 1982at [73]–[74]. See also,RvMohan [1994] 2 SCR 9 at 20.42 Hollington vF. Hewthorn & Co. Ltd [1943] KB 587 at 594; RvTirnaveanu [2007] EWCA Crim 1239 at [14].43 RvCampbell [2007] EWCA Crim 1472 at [24].44 RvRandall [2003] UKHL 69 at Legal relevanceWigmore,45 echoing Stephen,46 recognis......
-
Subject Index
.... . . .55, 56R vThomas (1796) 2Leach 637, 168ER 421 . . 298R vTilley [1961] 1WLR 1309 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277R v Tirnaveanu [2007] EWCA Crim 1239, [2007] 1WLR 3049 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119,124, 132, 278R vTofilau [2007] HCA39. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287R vTolso......
-
Misconduct That ‘Has to Do with the Alleged Facts of the Offence with Which the Defendant is Charged’ … More or Less
...to be treated pari passu. Defendants may not necessarily expect18 [2006] EWCA Crim 837, (2006) 170 JP 400 at [13].19 R v Tirnaveanu [2007] EWCA Crim 1239, [2007] 1 WLR 3049.20 See further text accompanying n. 36 below.Misconduct that ‘Has to Do with the Alleged Facts of the Offence . . any ......
-
Bad Character Evidence and Reprehensible Behaviour
...1 WLR1524 at [1(i)]. See alsoRvWatson [2006] EWCA Crim2308 at [19]; RvFrancis-Macrae [2006] EWCA Crim 2635 at [17]; RvTirnaveanu [2007] EWCA Crim 1239,[2007] 1 WLR 3049 at [21]; RvWallace [2007] EWCA Crim 1760 at [26].9 Law Commission, above n. 2.10 Ibid. at para. 4.84.11 [2005] EWCA Crim 2......